Left Behinds

The anti-andrewsullivan.com. Or, the Robin Hood (Maid Marian?) of bright pink Blogger blogs.

Monday, August 07, 2006

"A Lieberman defeat will send exactly the wrong message to thoughtful Democratic pols."

So says Gatemouth, in an echo of that brave iconoclast and original thinker, Cokie Roberts. On Sunday's This Week she said a Lamont victory would be "disastrous for the Democratic party" because it would "give the party to the liberals and the blogosphere" (c'mon, Cokes, wankers call it the "netroots" now -- "blogosphere" is so 2005), and sputtered something about how it was no accident that the only two-term Democratic president was Bill Clinton (or maybe George Will said that, I can't remember since it was such a monotonic chorus of conventional wisdom).

I don't exactly understand what she and others mean, since they only refer to the inevitable "chaos" (to use Cokie's word) that would ensue, without really explaining their logic. Is it that it would make the Dems unelectable? You mean unlike the past 6 years?

Personally, I'm concerned for anyone in Kos's immediate vicinity Tuesday night, because his ego-volcano is about to explode. Bigtime, as Cheney would say. But aside from that, what's the big deal?

This will strengthen a Gore presidential run. It's already made Hillz tack to the left on the war. In terms of pure process, it rewards the grassroots over the special interests. What's the downside? That for the first time in 15 years people are going to start talking about universal health care without snickering? Heaven help us.

6 Comments:

  • At 1:54 PM, Blogger Antid Oto said…

    Why do you watch those shows?

    I know, I know, for the CW. Fortunately, as of this fall, you can just watch The CW, including the excellent Veronica Mars.

     
  • At 2:29 PM, Blogger Solomon Grundy said…

    Heh, I thought of that when I saw the ad. There's also a country & western resonance.

    But Gatemouth was echoing something the Cokester said, which is what reminded me of the "Lieberman defeat=Democratic Party defeat" meme.

    I mean really, what's the logic? That we can only win if we become republicans, even though that strategy has been a losing one for the better part of a decade?

     
  • At 2:30 PM, Blogger Solomon Grundy said…

    Why would a Lamont victory send us into "chaos"? What's "exactly the wrong message," and what's the converse?

    I can't get my head around their argument.

     
  • At 2:32 PM, Blogger Solomon Grundy said…

    Also, by not watching those shows, you missed out on Cheshire Cat Rangel being extremely snarky about Yassky and a couple other nobodies.

     
  • At 4:16 PM, Blogger Antid Oto said…

    Which show? Maybe I can find a transcript.

     
  • At 1:47 PM, Blogger Solomon Grundy said…

    Kirtzman and Kramer, with a surprisingly reasonable Kirtzman interview. But it was all about tone and facial expression. His actual words were politic, but his grin actually told the story.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

 
FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com